Assessment of EoI:271



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 271 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: The ecosystem includes some important UNESCO special sites such as Maasai Mara and Serengeti.

Evidence B:The EOI clearly provides that the proposed territory is home to globally significant mammals such as wildebeests and elephants as well as birds species. It also comprises sanctuaries and community forests.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: NA/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: From such a large area carbon sequestration is substantial.

Evidence B:The EOI falls short of explaining the proposed territory’s contribution to climate mitigation. For example, no quantification/figure in terms of t/ha is provided.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Yes. Perhaps because of lack of skills inn the area, there are substantial positions in the project are occupied by outsiders.

Evidence B:As per the EOI, the main part of the area falls under protected areas (national parks), with some parts comprising rangelands occupied by Maasai and Taita Taveta communities.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: NA/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: Adequately.

Evidence B:No explanation is given in the EOI, of the unique cultural significance of the area to the IPLCs. The EOI however describes the ecosystem.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: There are many threats to all parts of the ecosystem, loss of biodiversity being the most serious one.

Evidence B:Question 3 of the EOI addresses different issues. Threats marginally touched upon.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: They work with county and national government as well as international partners and this brings in knowledge and practice of relevant legal and policy frameworks.

Evidence B:Information provided is not robust enough. The EOI however mentions the Wildlife Conservation Act, 2013.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Government agencies are active partners.

Evidence B:The Wildlife conservation Act of 2013 requires conservancy management plans. This, according to the EOI, has contributed to improved land management.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The Maasai Mara is surrounded by many active conservancies.

Evidence B:The EOI lists group ranches as successful projects. The information given to back this up is not convincing.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Many of the complementary projects have partnership relationship with KWCA.

Evidence B:The EOI lists several projects that are complementary to the proposed project. They implemented by partner organizations such as the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Associations and the Kenya Wildlife Service.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 28/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 12/30

Average Total Score: 20/30



Performance of EoI 271 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: It is well aligned since most of the proposed activities are complementary to the objectives conservation in the area.

Evidence B:The EOI for example, envisions scaling up IPLC inclusion in biodiversity conservation. Another approach is mainstreaming IPLC governance system in the conservation practice and policy in Kenya.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: They are well articulated and convincing.

Evidence B:The EOI has well defined interlinked components. However, these components should have contained more specific and concrete activities.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: They are realistic and it is possible to address substantial amounts during the time allocated.

Evidence B:The EOI is not convincing enough, apart from stating that the project will contribute to GEF’s pragmatic approach for inclusive and integrated conservation of biodiversity in East Africa.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: The project’s previous range of investment is lower bu well aligned.

Evidence B:Partially aligned. Activities need more sharpening and aligning them well with expected results.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The project has a big number of partners who have been with the project for a long time contributing significantly to the project.

Evidence B:The EOI envisages leveraging community’s in kind contribution as well as on-going work by other organization. This is not robust enough.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: NA/5

Evidence A: They are high but not too high.

Evidence B:Information provided is not relevant. The EOI refers to potential to support IPLC governance.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: They are well thought out.

Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on contribution of GEF core indicators.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: The management of the project were part of originators of the conservancy idea to include indigenous communities and local communities. So the project is implementing their long term vision.

Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on gender inclusion


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: Yes. Completely.

Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on cultural or livelihoods indicators.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: The project demonstrates deep awareness of Kenya constitutional requirement relating to gender balance and mainstreaming.

Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on consistency on national priorities.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Quite competently.

Evidence B:The EOI is poorly written with hence hard to review.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 37/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 10/40

Average Total Score: 23.5/40



Performance of EoI 271 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: Clearly led by IPLC but some important positions are occupied by personnel that are not IPLC.

Evidence B:No evidence is adduced of IPLC leadership in defining the approach.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: NA/6

Evidence A: The leadership has a long term association with the project.

Evidence B:No convincing/robust evidence is provided apart from prior experience implementing a GEF project.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: NA/5

Evidence A: Many partners is evidence of this.

Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on areas of expertise/qualifications of key staff members.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: The required skills are well indicated.

Evidence B:Based on the qualifications of staff, partners and experience implementing a GEF project, the proponent possesses demonstrable capacity to implement the project


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: The project indicates a high degree of competency from a long time involvement in the project.

Evidence B:The EOI meets most criteria. For example the average annual budget is $666, 545 and it regularly produces audited accounts statements.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: There is full awareness of safeguards.

Evidence B:No explanation is given, but the answer provided is Yes, indicating that the applicant has experience implementing a GEF funded project.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 28/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 13/30

Average Total Score: 23.5/30



Performance of EoI 271 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)